What Party to Choose on Sept 20, 2021

In the last week of this fall election things are appearing to be close. My two cents worth includes the following: 

The Sept 9 leader’s English debate 

What a disaster: the leaders were given little time to put forth their positions, and were largely prevented from interacting with one another. The result was a shallow performance by most. Looking distressed, Trudeau in particular was the target, as expected, but he was either cut off by the clock, the format or the less than neutral moderator. The topics were chosen for them but not much time was spent on monetary policy and financial challenges. There really was no debate, and that was a shame. Debates should take place in different parts of Canada to get discussion on a broader range of topics, some that should be specifically local. This “debate” was a disservice to voters. 

O’Toole repeatedly diverted questions about contradictions and inconsistencies in his policies into attacks on Trudeau for calling the election. The Green’s Annamie Paul, the only female, was rather cool and calm; she asked the rest to collaborate on climate proposals, as they did in the early days of the pandemic, a rather statesman-like observation. She did come across with a certain annoying moral superiority, though. Singh got in a good one liner to Trudeau and O’Toole (that’s all the debate was good for): “Let me tell you, you’re not stuck with these two. Better is possible.” I was taking notes trying to compare policy differences; I have only one page of scribbles. 

Party choices 

* I’m not interested in fringe parties, including specifically the extreme People’s Party of Canada under Maxime Bernier with their “freedom of expression” and “lockdowns and segregation” platform absurdities that play out with these selfish vaccine deniers/skeptics or even “freedom of choice” rhetoric. I’m certainly not interested in their “no carbon tax” strategy, the converse of which may prove to be the most important way to tighten down CO2 emissions

* The Christian Heritage Party, founded by attendees of the Dutch Reformed Church, is an example of a party that’s trying to use the electoral system to promote their narrow, religious-based views 

* Bloc Québécois: the political basis of the Bloc Québécois is that of Quebec nationalism and the support and advancement of Quebec sovereignty. Their leader, Yves-François Blanchet, in the leader’s debate had some interesting answers about Quebec’s position as a nation, its controversial Bill 21 that forbids Quebec civil servants from wearing religious symbols at work, as well as other aspects that makes the province unique from the rest of the country. As only residents of Quebec can vote for Bloc Québécois during the federal election, I’ll not go further 

* the Greens: while I consider one of my personal priorities the environment, I do not see my future governed by a single focus party. Annamie Paul is leading a party full of unrealistic strategies that would bankrupt the country. Even strategic voting doesn’t grab me 

* so then to the NDP, a party I must admit I have never voted for. It’s not that they don’t have some earnest, committed people, but they still have no sense of the long term consequences of their policy proposals on the drivers of Canadian economics, the business community and the elements that generate wealth. Their brand of socialist dogma can be unrealistic; they tend to wildly over-estimate revenues, and are even more out of whack on spending. I remember the late Jack Layton in 2008 collecting from each member of his caucus a wish list, and then publishing it as the NDP platform. I sense some more of the same. 

One practical example is Jagmeet Singh’s pledge to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. One of the things they seem to miss is that some of the subsidies include cleaning up abandoned oil and gas wells, reducing methane emissions and promoting clean technology. More controversially the NDP would put a stop to the federal governments’ involvement in expanding the Trans Mountain oil pipeline (that the Liberals purchased in 2018 for $4.5 billion). They also wouldn’t support liquified natural gas projects in BC, where the provincial NDP government has supported the industry with tax breaks. Both would be bad economic decisions and not advance the environmental efforts a whit. Singh is inclined to sweeping statements that catch attention but his roots remain leaning solidly left. 

Another example of a misguided strategy is a wealth tax, a form of which is NDP strategy. First of all it’s been tried before (France, Italy, Germany) and has not worked. The tax encourages flight to lower tax jurisdictions. Serious valuation difficulties occur. It discourages investment and wealth generation and punishes those who build strong businesses, amass capital and contribute to the economy. It does have strong appeal to certain segments though. Singh constantly talks about making the wealthy “pay their fair share” and the NDP have proposed the most radical overhaul of the existing system, with the central promise being a new annual wealth tax of one per cent on every dollar a family possesses above $10 million. They would also increase the top marginal tax rate to 35% (from 33%) and the capital gains inclusion rate from 50 to 75%. 

So I have narrowed my choice to the Liberals and Conservatives. I’ll address both their platforms and personalities. For a full comparison of the top six party platforms, go to the following from CBC News: https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/federal/2021/ party-platforms/. 

Platforms, Conservative
* Preamble: Erin O’Toole has been trying hard to move his party to the centre; whether in the long run the party will allow him remains to be seen, and therein lies some concern (there are all sorts of internal right wing pressures, e.g those counter to gay rights, abortion, gun control, etc.). So far, nothing really about O’Toole suggests he is still legitimately a conservative, as he is campaigning on Liberal-lite social liberalism and massive government spending. A cynic might easily be persuaded to advance the notion that O’Toole wants to be in power for some reason that doesn’t involve real change. Even Red Toryism (where I was politically back in the 1980s and 1990s), while socially progressive, adheres to fiscal conservatism. 

Perhaps the strategy of gaining power first provides one the opportunity to then change course. The Tories can then climb down from their Trojan horse stomach and infiltrate the corridors of power and have their conservative way (with a capital C or not). I know that’s cynical, but politics can drive you there. 

* Environment (which I believe is the defining issue of this election): for the first time ever the party has a real climate plan. However, as Drew Monkman said in the Peterborough Examiner on Sept 3, “despite major improvements compared to 2019, the Conservative plan still leaves much to be desired, especially when it comes to their carbon tax and lower reduction targets.” The Globe and Mail editorial on Aug 23 said, “Even if everything about (the Conservative climate plan) were to be executed perfectly, the results would still fall short of the Liberal plan…the Liberals road map is more ambitious, and its emphasis on carbon pricing makes it the sure bet.” 

What is equally worrying is that much of the Conservative base and elected MPs do not see climate action as a priority. O’Toole couldn’t even, for goodness sake, get the party to vote at their last policy convention in March for a sensible motion. They actually voted down a resolution which would have included the sentences “We recognize that climate change is real. The Conservative Party is willing to act.” 

* Financial: both parties forecast nearly the same deficit five years from now, $24.7 billion for Conservatives and $32 billion for Liberals. O’Toole said he would balance the federal debt within 10 years “without cuts” (the notion that the deficit can be shrunk by growing the economy instead of trimming government spending). He has no plans on curtailing spending on existing government programs. His math includes very optimistic economic growth projections – their platform says 3% or more per year. However the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) predicts real GDP growth will average around 1.7% annually between 2023 and 2025. 

To boost the economy, the Conservatives also promise a series of business tax breaks, including a 5% tax credit for capital investment in 2022 and 2023 that would cost $13.8 billion. Every party wants additional funding for the CRA to focus on Canadians who hide wealth. 

As a backdrop to this section, Statistics Canada reported the economy shrank in April, May and June instead of growing as predicted, and a predicted further drop in July. Further, inflation surged by 4.1% in August, the fastest rate of price increases in almost two decades..This was on top of a 3.7% increase in July. Economists however believe this is transitory. 

* Health care: regarding transfers to provinces, O’Toole will boost (unconditional) health transfers to the provinces by an extra $60-billion over 10 years (stated as 6%/year but that’s what it likely would be anyway, as the current transfer plan is likely to be calculated at the same level). But when it was costed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer it was found that only $3.6-billion would flow over the next five years. 

The spectre of two-tier health care under the Conservatives has been raised as O’Toole supports allowing for-profit, private clinics to provide medical services for a fee (while he, of course, supports the public system). I don’t find that an unreasonable position as long as citizens continue to have universal access to quality care at no cost. 

* COVID-19: they insist mandatory vaccines are a step too far. O’Toole says he will “respect personal health decisions”. On this he is wrong – getting vaccinated isn’t just a personal decision; it’s a choice that has profound implications for the wider community. O’Toole isn’t setting the right example. He won’t even require all of his candidates to get their shots. His argument that regular testing is an acceptable substitute isn’t logical. All testing does is confirm whether someone has the disease; only vaccines offer any real protection. (The NDP, to their credit, have taken the same position as the Liberals on this important issue.) Post script: In the final days of the campaign, Alberta is going through a pandemic crisis, with ICUs filling up and Jason Kenney looking like he has really blown it. O’Toole is doing everything he can to avoid the connection, although until quite recently he was heavy on Kenney praise 

* Child-care: would scrap the Liberal s’ $10-a-day plan. They are putting money toward giving working parents a direct infusion of cash, through a child-care tax credit. But the numbers are quite different from the Liberal plan; the Conservatives would replace the $29.8-billion in child-care transfers with just $2.6-billion in tax credits (calculated as 91% less).They then say they will spend $24.1-billion supporting the least well-paid workers by doubling the Canada workers benefit, a tax credit for low-income, working Canadians – a good idea but it isn’t a national child-care plan 

* Foreign Policy: have said they’d be open to resettling more than 20,000 Afghans. They also promised to stand up to “China’s aggressions” with a “coalition of democracies,” and work with allies to address threats from China, Russia and Iran. It remains unclear how the Conservative policy would be different from the Liberal one but I like their tougher stand on China

* Guns: have vowed to repeal C-71 and the Liberal order-in-council on outlawing 1,500 firearms. O’Toole then reversed course on the campaign trail and said a Tory government would keep in place the firearms ban, while conducting a public review of the classification system. They plan to introduce a simplified classification system and new safe storage provisions. This is an example of an O’Toole flip flop on this wedge issue; while he talks of an independent review, the gun lobbyists will undoubtably play a big role 

* Reconciliation: they will recognize safe drinking water as a fundamental human right and end all long-term drinking water advisories on reserves. They pledge to increase economic partnerships with First Nations communities and to provide $1 billion over five years to boost funding for Indigenous mental health and drug treatment programs. They promise a plan to implement the TRC’s calls to action 71 through 76 – dealing with uncovering missing children and searching burial sites – and fund searches at all former residential schools for unmarked graves 

* Long-term Care: oppose national standards for long-term care but say they will establish a set of “best practices” that the party would encourage provinces to adopt as law. They are also promising $3 billion over three years to upgrade facilities. They also pledge to introduce a Canada Seniors Care Benefit that would pay $200 per month per household to people living with and caring for a parent over age 70 

* Pipelines: will make it a priority to have pipelines delivering Canadian oil to export markets. They pledge to get the Trans Mountain pipeline built, support the Coastal GasLink pipeline project and have accused Liberals of “rolling over” after the US cancellation of Keystone. The party says it will repeal the Liberals’ Oil Tanker Moratorium Act and Impact Assessment Act, which overhauled the federal environmental assessment process for major projects to require more consultations with Indigenous communities and more consideration of climate impacts 

* Seniors: promising a Canada Seniors Care Benefit paying $200 per month, per household, to any Canadian living with and taking care of a parent over the age of 70. They would also allow seniors or their caregivers to claim the Medical Expense Tax Credit for home care 

* CBC: would like to privatize most of the CBC. A 2019 poll suggests Canadians are largely in favour of maintaining or increasing funding for the CBC, though Conservative voters are far less enthusiastic supporting the country’s public broadcaster. For me the CBC represents the nation’s memory, artistic fibre and culture. For example, one simply has to experience the barrenness of radio throughout the US, to understand how important I feel is the public broadcasters role 

Platforms, Liberal
* Preamble: Trudeau is getting hammered by all the parties (it’s O’Toole’s standard fill-in line) for calling the election in the first place. He has not been very convincing in his responses regarding his rational (political opportunism isn’t a good answer, and from a mostly compliant parliament he wasn’t facing a lot of political obstruction) 

* Environment: they have the strongest environmental plan. It includes tougher-than- ever goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and a comprehensive agenda for transitioning from an oil and gas dependent economy to a sustainable one. It includes a carbon pricing system (or tax), the most honest and least economically damaging way to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. They aim for a 50% reduction below 2005 levels by 2030. 

The Liberals have been tight-rope walking a delicate path between realizing Canada’s enormous capacity for oil and gas revenues and environmental necessities. It’s vulnerable to NDP and Green pot shots and anyone else who wants to out-virtue-signal everyone on getting tough on the oil industry. But it does recognize that whatever the outcome on September 20, production in the oil sands is likely to continue to increase for at least another decade or more. 

It’s important to emphasize an argument I made in my Blog “The Fight Against Climate Change” and that is pipelines don’t increase demand and pipelining what is being used anyway reduces environmental consequences of rail. At the same time Alberta is selling its oil to the US at a huge discount, Eastern Canada is buying over 800,000 barrels/day from Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Norway and Nigeria. As consumers of hydrocarbons I assume we would prefer to be buying Canadian. The reality is that building another pipeline will not affect worldwide demand. Supply is developed to satisfy demand so the sensible strategy is to tackle the demand issue. The bitter side of this was voiced by oil writer David Yager on Sept 1 “that too many Canadians don’t understand where the necessities of life come from. So they are able to trash the oil sands and obstruct pipelines while simultaneously complaining about high gasoline prices. Yet they expect ample supplies of everything from plastic to heat to food to be available on demand at a low cost.” 

* Financial: Trudeau is focussed on things like their child-care program, which would be a “significant driver of growth”. This can help resuscitate the economy impacted by the pandemic. The most recent budget projects a $30.7 billion deficit by 2025-26. The Liberals increased the federal minimum wage to $15 and say they would enhance the Canada Workers Benefit to support about one million more Canadians in low-wage jobs. They promise to create the Canada Disability Benefit, a direct monthly payment for low-income Canadians with disabilities between the ages of 18-64. Though the idea is popular among some grassroots party members, Liberals have not committed to a universal basic income. (The NDP have said they would make the “creation of a guaranteed livable basic income” a priority. If the Liberals get in with a minority – which I think is likely, the NDP will likely push this issue forward, although in our current economic climate, serious constraints should be exercised here.) 

* Health care: they promise to spend $25 billion over five years (vs the Conservatives $5.1 billion). Their plan is to hire more doctors and nurses, provide $6 billion to clear the backlog of surgeries and procedures that built up during the pandemic, and invest more in both long-term care and mental-health care. For example they promise to transfer $4.5 billion over five years in a new, permanent funding for mental health. They also pledged $1.4 billion in added funding over five years to co-develop an Indigenous mental-health strategy 

* COVID-19: this is an important dividing line between the Liberals and Conservatives; Trudeau is championing the importance of making vaccination mandatory for some people, including federal employees and anyone who wants to get on a plane or train. The social duty we have to each other is a critical principle, and I support it strongly. To emphasize this further, the state has been regulating public health for decades, and vaccination is a long-established pillar of public health 

* Child-care: plan to give $29.8-billion to the provinces over five years (and $9.2 billion after that) to create more publicly supported, $10-a-day child care options (and they’ve already signed deals with seven provinces). This nationwide daycare system will help both the economy by increasing the participation of women in the labour force (as it did in Quebec) and the needs of children, women and families. I define this as an important nation-building program that will be good for the country’s future 

* Foreign Policy: have pledged to resettle 40,000 Afghan refugees and to continue to support Afghans who did not get out of the country, although it has not offered details on how that would happen. They say they plan to work with allies to respond to the behaviour of “authoritarian states” such as China, Russia and Iran, and develop a coordinated response on matters such as arbitrary detention and foreign interference in elections. They would increase Canada’s international development assistance and donate 200 million vaccine doses to vulnerable populations abroad by the end of 2022 

* Guns: passed Bill C-71 in 2019 to enhance background checks for firearms purchases and force retailers to keep records of sales. In 2020, they banned the use, sale and importation of 1,500 makes and models of what they dubbed military-grade “assault- style” firearms. Liberals are promising to make it mandatory for owners of barred firearms to sell them back to the government or have them rendered inoperable. They promise to “crack down on high-capacity magazines,” boost penalties for gun trafficking and smuggling, and spend $1 billion to help provinces and territories ban handguns in their jurisdictions 

* Reconciliation: their intention is to commit to this, and while they have been slow in certain areas (naive optimistic objectives have contributed) I see nothing that makes me believe they aren’t sincere in their intentions (despite what Jody Wilson-Raybould says). One specific plan is to spend $2 billion over the next five years on measures to address the legacy of the Indigenous residential schools with “truth, justice and healing” initiatives.They did not fulfil their promise to lift all long-term boil-water advisories in First Nations by March 2021, but poured $1.5 billion more last year into completing the project. Their spring budget promised $18 billion over five years to improve the quality of life for people in Indigenous communities through things like education and health care 

* Long-term Care: promise to introduce legislation, the Safe Long-Term Care Act, that would set national standards. They have also promised $9 billion in funding over five years to improve wages for care workers and hire 50,000 new ones. They would also double the Home Accessibility Tax Credit, improve the quality and access to long-term care beds and increase federal inspections for infection prevention 

* Pipelines: purchased the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project and vow both to see it completed and to direct any revenues from the pipeline into the transition to clean energy. Liberals support the Coastal GasLink pipeline project in B.C. and were proponents of the Keystone XL pipeline rejected this year by U.S. President Joe Biden. Earlier, Liberals rejected the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline to B.C.’s coast 

* Seniors: a 10 per cent increase to Old Age Security benefits for pensioners 75 or older, starting next July. In August, the government provided a one-time payment of $500 to OAS pensioners who will be 75 or older as of June 30, 2022. They are now promising to spend $9 billion over five years for seniors and to permanently increase the Guaranteed Income Supplement by $500 annually for single seniors and $750 for senior couples over 65. (I can’t see anything wrong in largesse shown to seniors!) 

* Housing: all parties are promising strategies for bringing prices down (by improving supply and making it easier for young people to buy real estate), but the reality bogs down at the local government level where the control on zoning and permitting processes exists. The Liberals have pledged to build 1.4 million homes over the next four years; the Conservatives have said one million over the next three years; the NDP 500,000 over 10 years. There is also the concern that some of the party strategies could be stimulative and drive up prices further! This election does appear to be the first one where housing may be a ballot question 

Observations as a result of the platform reviews 

• Our political system tends to measure platforms and reward politicians for spending money
• There is little incentive in the system for political collaboration, for working together. The COVID-19 response at its early stages provided a sense of the possibilities
• Political time horizons are short; four years at most in majority government situations. Most important economic/social issues have longer time lines
• The use of carrots to stimulate business productivity growth, while used somewhat, can be significantly expanded (Canada’s productivity growth lags behind most of the OECD nations, and particularly the US)
• Little emphasis has been placed in public policy strategies focussed on innovation (China has raised its R & D funding to 2.5% of GDP from 1.4%)
• Canada needs to expand it’s international trade focus. Over 70% is with the US. Even our links with the authoritarian regime of China must be diminished. We need to look broader
• Our health-care system is not sustainable (aging population, lengthy wait times, poor doctor to patient ratios, orphaned patients); findings solutions in a system where health care is a provincial responsibility is a key national issue

Personalities
Trudeau: he is wearing thin on me. By that I mean he comes across as a tad hypocritical; he talks feminism but his actions belie it; he wants Canada to be respected world wide but his actions are often inappropriate; he talks principle but issues cheap shots (witness his flag raising pejorative flung at O’Toole in the debate); he proceeded to fly off in a bizarre direction by denouncing O’Toole for failing to condemn the noisy and aggressive protests, even though the Conservative leader did precisely that last week. 

He has sort of a banality that irritates, and certainly is no sophisticated, cerebral, non-conforming Pierre. He doesn’t have the range of knowledge nor the depth to handle the task of running the country. He seems to make a lot of errors in judgement and has a difficult time admitting these errors; his mea culpas are few. Probably the defining issue of this election is the fact that it was called at all, and that it was called at an inconvenient time, what with the COVID-19 variation expansion across the country. While this can be justified by the reality that in all minority situations incumbent governments look for opportune times to go to the polls, he is being justly hammered for it. 

O’Toole: has arrived at this moment having survived the Conservative nomination process by adapting policy positions to the needs of the moment. He is a chameleon and I don’t have a lot of trust in his values, as they seem to be of the moment; he needs a stiffer spine. He seems overly stage managed and pre-packaged. He seems to have a hard time with being extemporaneous, for being nimble on his feet. He has also in the last week of the campaign taken to delivering personal attacks on Trudeau, which sinks to US levels that I find distasteful. Further, as Lawrence Martin in the Sept 16 Globe & Mail said “his broken-record campaign raises the question…of what else has he to run on. Where’s the big signature policy?” 

Locally here in Peterborough 

* I’m inclined to vote party vs person, as I am interested in the broad possibilities of public policy on Canada, not the local “who can get more for my riding” attitude. The latter implies what’s good for one riding potentially means less for others, and I’m not interested in that mentality. I’d rather assume, probably naively, that what’s good for Canada will be good for my riding 

* Having said that, my local riding, Peterborough-Kawartha, has Maryam Monsef, an excellent flag bearer for the Liberal party, in that she is quite passionate about both her constituency work as well as being a member of Trudeau’s cabinet (as Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Minister of Rural Economic Development). She thinks both locally and nationally 

Her Conservative challenger is Michelle Ferreri, a young, attractive business owner with a high recognition locally. However I participated last week in two webinars lasting two hours each. On the one she didn’t attend but sent a very cursory video purporting to deal with the issues being discussed. On the other, her contribution, while enthusiastic, was full of platitudes, and short on a grasp of the issues. Thin gruel! Monsef, not surprisingly, as she is in the thick of it daily, was well prepared with thoughtful answers and ideas. 

Wrap-up 

Platforms: I continue to be a fiscal conservative; controlling taxes, spending and the debt are critical to our ability to offer the social programs that make Canada a tolerant and compassionate country. At the same time I value certain of these important social initiatives. With these two bookends as a guide, my take on the current political, offerings as described above is as follows: 

* the Liberals take it on the environment (very high on my priorities, which almost makes it a “deal breaker”), health care, COVID-19 response, child-care, gun control, the future of the CBC, and reconciliation

* I lean to the Conservatives on the financial file, foreign policy and pipelines. For all other files it’s a toss up

* Interestingly, there has been little debate on Arctic sovereignty, Afghanistan, the military (senior management; ships/planes procurement, etc.), high speed rail initiatives; long term viability of the health care system and the possibility of user fees (provincial yes, but transfer money can leverage a lot); reduction of interprovincial trade barriers; electoral reform, opioid issues; immigration targets

Personalities:
For the Conservatives: I have some discomfort in thinking ahead of a country run by a man who seems to assume and discard elements of public policy and values as easily as O’Toole does. He seems prepared to adapt his political philosophy to the situation and people he is currently facing. How much will he be beholden to forces of the right that do not represent my values, whether they be not backing mandatory vaccinations, the gun lobby, the right to life cadre (note the private member’s bill C-233 that would criminalize sex-selective abortion), the rigidity of those who do not fully support women rights or the LGBTQ community or the wide range of cultures within the Canadian mosaic. Plus I feel that he still isn’t committed to the environmental issues. 

For the Liberals: if Trudeau loses the election he will likely be replaced. If he leads a minority government, there might be pressure to replace him. My personal choice: Chrystia Freeland, currently deputy PM and minister of finance and a very bright lady, would make a good PM.